Holding

The Supreme Court held that the non‑joinder of the respondents does not exempt them from the binding effect of the High Court's judgment quashing the selection, and the High Court erred in bypassing its own earlier judgment.

Summary

The State of Punjab advertised 31 posts and selected candidates through a process that was later challenged in a writ petition by some unsuccessful applicants, with only 18 of the selected candidates made parties. The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the entire selection process, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, leading the State to cancel the appointments of all 31 candidates. The remaining 13 candidates, who were not parties to the original writ, filed separate petitions arguing that they were not bound by the High Court's judgment and that their earlier ad‑hoc appointments should be regularised. The High Court allowed their petitions, but the Supreme Court set aside that judgment, holding that the non‑joinder of these candidates does not give them a right to evade the binding order quashing the selection. Consequently, the cancellation of their appointments stands and the appeal by the State is allowed.

Issues considered

Whether candidates who were not parties to the original writ petition are bound by the High Court's judgment quashing the selection process.
Whether the High Court could set aside the State's order cancelling appointments after the earlier judgment had been upheld.
Whether the respondents could file a fresh writ petition on the ground of regularisation of ad‑hoc service despite having been selected under the flawed process.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226

Subjects

service lawselection processwrit petitionnon‑joinderbinding judgmentadministrative lawappointment cancellationregularisationArticle 226Article 136

Judgment

ST ATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A
v.
SATNAM KAUR AND ORS.

DECEMBER 16, 2005

(S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Selection-Selection process-31 posts were filled up pursuant to an
advertisement-Writ petition filed by some unsuccessfully candidates wherein C
only 18 ofthe selected candidates were made parties-Entire selection process
was questioned on the ground that the names of the said 18 selected candidates
were recommended by some influential persons-High Court set aside the
selections made by the Selection Board-Thereafter, the appointments of all
the 31 selected candidates were cancelled-Those candidates who were not D
made parties in the earlier writ petition challenged the cancellation of their
appointments on the ground that they were not bound by the decision of the
High Court-The High Court allowed the writ petition-Correctness of-
Held: The High Court for all intent and purport sought to bypass its own
binding judgment-The effect of non-joinder of the said candidates would
not be such which would confer a legal right upon them to file another writ E
petition whereby the effect of the earlier judgment would be completely wiped
out-High Court judgment set aside.

The respondents were appointed to certain posts pursuant to an
advertisement for 31 posts. A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful
candidates wherein 18 of the selected candidates were made parties but not F
the respondents. The entire selection process was questioned on the ground
that the names of the said 18 selected candidates were recommended by some
influential persons. The High Court set aside the selections made by the
Selection Board. The said order was upheld by this Court. The appellant-State,
thereafter, cancelled the appointment of all the 31 candidates. G
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court contending
that as they had been appointed on an ad hoc basis long time back and they
were not parties in the earlier writ petition, they were not bound by the
decision of the High Court and, therefore, the appellant-State could not have
891 II
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A cancelled their appointments. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Hence
the appeal.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. This was not a case where the High Court could have
B interfered with the order passed by the appellant-State cancelling the
appointments of all the 31 selected candidates. It is true that in the writ petition
filed by some of the unsuccessful candidates only 18 out of the 31 selected
candidates were made parties, but they were made parties because an additional
ground was taken by the writ petitioners therein that their cases were
recommended by some influential persons or they were otherwise known to
C the Civil Surgeon. The main prayer on the said writ petition, however, was
that the entire selection process was bad in law. Once the High Court was of
the opinion that the entire selection process was bad in law and the said order
having been upheld by this Court it was impermissible to bypass the same.
The contention of the respondents that they were entitled to be regularized in
D services was not a matter which had a direct nexus with the order of
termination of their services passed by the State. Indisputably, they took part
in the selection process. Indisputably again such selection process was
initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Civil Surgeon. Once
the respondents had participated in the selection process and were selected,
they could not have filed a writ petition on a different premise, namely, they
E having been appointed on ad hoc basis long time back, their services should
have been regularized pursuant to or in furtherance of a purported policy
decision. (897-C-F]

2. The High Court for all intent arid purport, thus, sought to bypass its
F own binding judgment as also the order of this Court. Moreover, the effect of
such judgments did not fall for discussion by the High Court. The effect of
non-joinder of the respondents would not be such which would confer a legal
right upon them to file another writ petition whereby and whereunder the effect
of the earlier judgment would be completely wiped out (898-CI

G ·Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P)
Ltd, (199716 SCC 450, Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2003] 1 SCC
707 and Mis. D. Navinchandra & Co. v. Union of India, (19871 3 SCC 66,
relied on.

Devadasan v. Union of India, AIR (1964) SC 179 and Prabodh Verma
H v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1985) SC 167, referred to.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SATNAM KAUR [SINHA, J.) 893

Arun Tewari v. Zita Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, 1199812sec332, held A
inapplicable.

3. In the instant case what was commended by the High Court and this
Court was not the validity or otherwise of the advertisement issued in the
press but the mode and manner in which the selection of the candidates was
held. (899-EJ B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6046-6058 of
2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated lOJ.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 6234, 7057, 7130, 7160~ 7297, 7458, 7781, 7797, 7798, C
7800, 7825, 8208 and 8523 of2001.

Sarup Singh and Sr. Addi.Advocate General for State of Pm1jab and
Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants.

Gumam Singh, Dinesh Verma, Ms. Suresh Kumar, A.P. Mohanty and D
Ms, S. Janani for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. The State of Punjab is in appeal before us being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 E
passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing
the writ petitions filed by the Respondents herein.

On or about 07.05.1997, the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr issued an
advertisement in 'New Zamana', Jalandhar, inviting applications for the
following 31 posts : F
{I) Ward Servant 15
(2) Sweeper 00
(3) Mali 02
(4) Cook ()t G
"(5) Aaya 01
(6) Dental Attendant 01

A large number of candidates being more than 9000 applied for
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A appointments in the said posts pursuant to or in furtherance of the said
advertisement. Interviews of about 1000 persons were conducted on 12/
13.05.1997. ·Appointment letters to the so-called candidates were despatched
on 05.06.1997 ~nd they were allowed to join on 06.06.1997.

A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful candidates, which was
B marked as Civil Writ Petition No.l 1116 of 1997, wherein 18 of the selected
candidates were made parties. The entire selection process as well as the
selection of the said respondents were questioned, inter alia, on the ground
that their names were recommended by one or the other influential persons
or they had otherwise access to the Civil Surgeon concerned. In the said writ
C petition, it was, inter alia, prayed :

"(i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
selection of Class IV employee in the civil hospital Nawanshahr vide
selection list Annexure P/3 and further to order quashing the
appointment of respondent No.4 to 21 against the post (in class IV)
D and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 3
to appoint the petitioner as Class IV employees in the civil hospital,
Nawanshahr."

A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated
10.11.2000 perused the records pertaining to the process of selection and the
E results thereof and was of the opinion that although no criteria whatsoever
was fixed for evaluating the marks which were to be given to each individual
candidate but despite the same 5 marks had been awarded for the purported
qualification and experience to each candidate while 20 marks had been fixed
for interview. It was noticed :

F " .. .It may also be. mentioned here that according to the notification
which was issued on 7th May, 1997, it was indicated that {i) the
candidate should be able to read write, Punjabi and (ii) the experience
shall be given preference. In view of this it is apparent that the
committee which was conducting the interview was given no guidelines
which were to be followed by them by evaluating the worth of any
G candidate it had an absolute and arbitrary discretion regarding how
they were to access and award marks during the time of interview
Further more it is also evident that out of a total of 30 marks that were
to be awarded, 20 marks have been earmarked for the interview which
shows that more than 66% marks were to be given by the member of
H the board without any parameter having been fixed awarding thereof.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SATNAM KAUR [SINHA, J.) 895
No material has been placed before us to show that how 20 marks A
were to be awarded by the five members of the Board nor it is clear
that how the marks have actually been awarded" .

The High Court further noticed the manner in which discriminatory
treatment had been made in awarding the marks to the persons similarly
situated. It was also not clear to the High Court as to how the merit list was B
prepared. It was observed :

" ... One fails to see how a person been the basic qualifications, above
to read and write Punjabi could have been awarded 1 marks not here
is anything to indicate that on what basis various candidates have
been awarded more marks once the advertisement did not provide for C
preference being given to candidates having higher qualifications."

It was noticed that even while awarding marks for experience candidates
were awarded marks from 0 to 15. It was further held :

tt.. .It is also not clear from the lists, as already indicated above by us, D
as to how the member of the Board had awarded marks and the
participations made by each of those members during the interview as
would have been the case if each of them had been required to give
their assessment out of 4 marks or each of them had been required.
to evaluate each candidate after giving him marks of 20 and then an E
average had been drawn up"

The High Court wondered that even if one minute was spent on one
candidate and if one more minute was required for another candidate to come
in and go out, at least 2000 minutes would be required for interviewing 1000
candidates and, thus, there was no reason as to why only 2 dates had been F
fixed for interview; and even if the members of the Selection Board sat for 5
to 6 hours a day, they would not have been able to finish the interview of
so many candidates, observing :

" ... This would bring the projected time which the Board wanted to
spend on interview of one candidate to less than 30 seconds, which G
would include the time for calling in of a candidate, making him sit
down, ask him questions and then requesting him to leave."

The High Court, therefore, set aside the selection made by the Board.
The State did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. One Jaswinder Lal preferred
a special leave petition thereagainst and this Court by an order dated 12.02.2001 H

'
,.

896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2115 of2001, dismissed the said
petition, opining :

"We have not got the slightest doubt in the greatest abuse of
power by the officer concerned. The High Court is entirely correct in
taking the decision which it did. The Special Leave Petition dismissed."
B
The State of Punjab thereafter by an order dated 23 .04.200 I cancelled
the appointments of all the 31 candidates.

The respondents herein questioned the said order by filing writ petitions
before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, inter alia, contending that as they
C had been appointed on an ad hoc basis long back, they were asked to appear
before the Interview Board only for the purpose of regularization of their
services. It was further contended that as they were not parties in the earlier
writ petition, they were not bound by the said decision and in that view of
the matter the State could not have cancelled their appointments.

D A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said writ petitions
holding that the services of the respondents herein should have been
regularized purported to be under the Government instructions dated 18.01.1995,
whereby and whereunder the services of ad hoc Class IV employees were to
be regularized if they had completed the period of 240 days on 31.12.1994.
E Mr. Sarup Singh, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the State of Punjab, in assailing the judgment, would contend
that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned
judgment relying on or on the basis of a judgment of this Court in T. Devadasan
v. Union of India and Anr., AIR (1964) SC 179, which has no application in
F the instant case. ·

It was furthermore submitted that in view of the fact that High Court
in the writ petition quashed the entire selection process, the State had no
other option but to terminate the services of all the selected candidates,
although the respondents herein were not parties thereto.
G
Mr. Gurnam Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents herein, on the other hand, would support the judgment of the
High Court, contending that the respondents herein had continued in service
for a number of years after their appointment. It was urged that the respondents
herein were appointed long back and, thus, in terms of the policy decision
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SATNAM KAUR [SINHA, J.] 897

of the State their services were to be regularized. It was further submitted that A
as the respondents herein were not parties in the earlier writ petition, the said
judgment was not binding on them. Reliance in this behalf, has been placed
on Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1985] 2 SLR 714
: AIR (1985) SC 167.

The learned counsel relying on or on the basis of a judgment of this B
Court in Arun Tewari and Ors. v. Zita Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors.,
[1998] 2 SCC 332 wo!Jld contend that in all cases, it is not necessary to follow
all the procedures laid down in the rules.

It was not a case where the High Court, in our opinion, could have
interfered with the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the appellant herein. We C
have noticed hereinbefore the findings of the High Court arrived in Writ
Petition No.11116 of 1997 for the purpose of setting aside the entire selection
process. It is true that in the said writ petition only 18 out of 31 selected
candidates were made parties, but they were made parties because an additic,nal
ground was taken by the writ petitioners therein that their cases were D
recommended by some influential persons or they were otherwise known to
the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr. The main prayer in the said writ petition,
however, was that the entire selection process was bad in law. Once the High
Court was of the opinion that the entire selection process was bad in law and
the said order having been upheld by this Court, in our opinion, it was
impermissible to bye-pass the same. The contention of the respondents herein E
that they were entitled to be regularized in services was not a matter which
had a direct nexus with the order of termination of their services passed by
the State. Indisputably, they took part in the selection process. Indisputably
again such selection process was initiated pursuant to the advertisement
issued by the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr. Once the respondents herein had F
participated in the selection process and became selected, they could not
have filed a writ petition on a different premise, namely, they having been
appointed on ad hoc basis long time back, their services should have been
regularized pursuant to or in furtherance of a purported policy decision dated
18.01.1995.
G
The High Court in its judgment and order dated 10.11.2000 clearly noted
that an advertisement was issued in a local newspaper and pursuant thereto
about 9000 candidates filed their applications. Out of the said 9000 candidates,
1000 candidates were interviewed. The respondents herein do not say that
they were not amongst the said 1000 candidates. It is not their contentions H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A that they were not interviewed on 12/13.05. 1997. It was further not disputed
that appointment letters in their favour were issued on 05.06.1997 and they
joined their respective posts on 06.06.1997. In the aforementioned premise, it
was impermissible for the respondents herein to file the writ petition contending
that they appeared before the Selection Board in connection with regularization
of their services.
B
The High Court for all intent and purport, thus, sought to bye-pass its
own binding judgment as also the order of this Court. Moreover, the effect
of such judgments did not fall for discussion by the High Court. The effect
of non-joinder of the respondents would not be such which would confer a
C legal right upon them to file another writ petition whereby and whereunder
the effect of the earlier judgment would be completely wiped out.

In Prabodh Verma, (supra),this Court in the factual matrix obtaining
therein was of the view that the High Court ought not to have heard or
disposed pf the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
D In the instant case, 18 persons were impleaded as respondents in their
individual as also representative capacity. Even if the respondents were
aggrieved, they could have come before this Court· under Article 136 of the
Constitution oflndia. Even a review petition at their instance was maintainable.
Prior to issuance of letter of termination dated 23.04.2001, they questioned the
order of termination only. Such order-of termination cannot be said to be in
E any manner vitiated in law as the same had been. issued pursuant to or in
furtherance of a lawful judgment passed by the High Court and affirmed by
this Court. It was a duty of the High Cour't to follow the decision of this Court.

·In Dwarikesh
• c..,
Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works
F (P) Ltd. And Anr., [ 1997] 6 sec 450, it was held :

"When a position, in law, is well settled as a result,of judicial
pronou,n.cell!ent 0 fthis Court, it would amoun(to judicial impropriety,
to say the least, for tile subordinate courts including the High Courts
to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which,
1
is clearly contrary to the settled tegal positicin. Such Judicial adventurism: -
G
cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate t'he tendency of.the;
subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing
whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful
and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this ,.
I

tendency stops."
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SATNAM KAUR [SINHA. J.] 899
(See also Ajay Kumar Bhuyan and Ors. etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors. A
etc., (2003] I SCC 707].

Yet again in Mis D. Navinchandra and Co., Bombay v. Union of India
am:' Ors. (1987] 3 SCC 66, Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was) speaking
for a three-Judge Bench of this Court stated the law in the following terms:
B
" ... Generally legal positions laid down by the court would be binding
on all concerned even though some of them have not been made
parties nor were served nor any notice of such proceedings given."

The decision of this Court in Arun Tewari (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein, has no C
application in the instant case. The question which was raised therein w:ts
absolutely different and distinct. Therein the selection process was held to
be valid having regard to the fact that 7000 posts of Assistant Teachers under
a time-bound scheme were to be filled up wherein the rules were amended.
This Court in that situation observed :
D
'There are different methods of inviting applications. The method
adopted in the exigencies of the situation in the present case cannot
be labelled as unfair, particularly when, at the relevant time, the two
~arlier decisions of this Court were in vogue."

In the instant case, what was commended by the High Court and this E
Court was not the validity or otherwise of the advertisement issu~d in the
press but the mode and manner in which the selection of the candidates was
held.

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned F
judgment is unsustainable in law, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal
are allowed. No costs.

v.s.s. Appeals allowed.